Of course YOU respond first ....
Look - pull the TVA out, say it made money afterwards and on down the line since its' founding, FINE! The point is as part of a report card I must consider whether or not "NEW DEAL", in toto, worked or did not! Both of you have conceded that while there were "bright spots", & it later aided in the war effort, that it DID NOT delive on the promise of success by decades end. Thus the qualifier you each employ regularly when discussing this: "I'm not defending the New Deal, I'm not saying FDR was right." Believe me, were it successful I would have never read those words (over & over)! If you COULD defend it I have no doubt you would of! Why is that so hard for you to grasp??? You have EACH conceded this to me. You have EACH explained that there were "bright spots", items that DID make money like the TVA, future advantages like power in remote areas otherwise unable to contribute to the war effort, but you may not have your cake and eat it too my friends! None of what you describe, and I mean NOT A SYLLABLE constitutes a rating of "SUCCESS" for New Deal for the era! You've both even said so! I'm not letting you get away with this "It wasn't a success but it wasn't a failure either" double speak any longer. PICK ONE! I'm judging New Deal on whether it met its stated goals - to end the ERA of depressions, recessions and unemployment. It DID NOT. Unemployment climbed back to 19% by 1940, after nearly a decade of New Deal. There was another sharp recession in 1938, dubbed the "Roosevelt Recession", not by F.Ryan, but by HISTORY. And don't give me this nonsense about that recession was because the GOP screamed about spending so the spicket was turned off - there was still many a dollars flowing compared to 1930 when he took office, and regardless FDR signed the spending bill, his budget during his tenure HIS recession. I'm quite sure that's why historians have named it as such. Near the close of the decade the program as a whole had NOT met its stated goals. The era of recessions and unemployment, of dollar, property and stock values, and new business start ups had NOT returned to pre bust levels, READ: the "malaise" CONTINUED UNTIL WWII. To go back, demonstrate that in the long run the TVA turned a profit, and that the energy plants helped the war effort is IRRELEVANT when judging the success or failure of "NEW DEAL." New Deal wasn't sold or set up to turn a profit for the government over 70 years! It wasn't set up to serve as a bulwark for war time production! It was set up TO END THE ERA OF DEPRESSIONS, RECESSIONS AND HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT! It didn't! Roosevelt didn't go on the radio and whistle stop tours shouting, "And if you elect me, I'll make sure the TVA turns a profit for decades after you and I die!" "Furthermore, if you elect me, I will end the text book definition of 4 quarters of consecutive negative growth ... it'll be 2, maybe 3, but I'll put a stop to 4!"
People, people, people, get a grip! This is not the standard! Did it deliver what it promised - to end the era of hardship, high unemployment and recessions? NOOOOOOOOOO. I don't give a damn how many tanks it built in later years or how big a bonus the TVA director gets in 2010 - this ain't the damn point!
Jeeeeesh.
He was a superb war time CIC, fine, I concede that. But we aren't doing a "war time report card", are we? The standard was a "Presidential Report Card." I'm sorry, but as much as you would like to (Jambo), you don't to get to ignore domestic policy OF A FOUR TERM PRESIDENT because he beat back the Huns! His SIGNATURE domestic policy (in multiple pieces) is New Deal. You say it is indefensible as a "success." So did you Titus. Fine, bright spots aside, it FAILED. If the war is one half and New Deal the other then FDR gets a full 50%, for the war, a goose egg for his economic policy/theory which was his entire domestic agenda entitled NEW DEAL which you both say can not be defended in total as a "success." Fine - in ANY report card a 50% rating is a failing grade.
Like I said .... JEEEEEEEEESH
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think you are being more than a little disingenuous when you make posts like this.
We have argued the merits and failings of the New Deal time and again, but you are constantly demanding 'black-and-white' results from a rainbow pallet. If I have said that New Deal FAILED, it is because you insist on an all-or-nothing evaluation of the process and results, and both Jambo and myself have said that not every indicator returned to pre-crash levels before the start of the war. Thus, you DEMAND that we concede defeat based on YOUR criteria alone because you dismiss OUR criteria as ignorant and irrelevant propoganda-induced delirium... no matter what evidence we produce or provide to the contrary.
If, in the next two years, unemployment in the US drops to less than 6% natonally, does that mean that Obama's fiscal policies were a SUCCESS? GDP is on the rise, there is an increase in new business openings, and retail sales have shown the biggest gains in more than two years... so all we need is unemployment to go up and Obama's promises of stimulus success if delivered, right?
You (and I) would argue that the economy has rebounded IN SPITE OF the Obama spending, not because of it. This is no different than YOU claiming that the economy rebounded IN SPITE OF New Deal rather than because of it (as James and I contend)... even if unemployment stayed painfully high well into the year 1941 (something I feel I have cast doubt on, by the way). As you say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I hate the comparison of this economy and President to that of 1932... but you WANT it to be there. You need to show that what Obama is doing is as doomed to failure as what you percieve to be the case with New Deal... but Jambo has made the case that New Deal did things and provided the nation with results that Obama's stimulus has not done... tangible, measurable and specific gains to infrastructure and domestic development that can provide benefits for the nation for decades into the future.
Obama is NOT FDR, and this recession is NOT the Great Depression... but one doesn't equal the other simply because both Obama and FDR have the same party affiliation.
Post a Comment